The Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act

[PMG2010]

Anyone know where we are with this? Why hasn't this been made law yet?

gunlaws.com - Gun Free Zone Bill and Review

I believe that this was originally slated for action in the AZ congress. IMHO, This needs to be addressed the federal level. Contact your congressman and lets get behind this thing!

 

[txinvestigator]

It has not passed because it is a BAD law.

 

[KAK]

It is a fantastic law! I think any POB that creates an unnecessary hazard needs to be liable for the harm that it might do.

Even though this isn't passed, if I were shot in a post office, or college campus after being disarmed, I would sue.

 

[KAK]

Despite what some people have claimed, private property rights are unaffected by the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act. Read it yourself and see. Gun-free zones are allowed, entirely at a property owner's free discretion just as they are now, and property rights remain 100% intact. You can keep guns, ban guns, allow only 9mm, it doesn't matter, and the new law is silent on this. There is NO coercion (and also no government spending!) in this bill at all. That's a big part of its beauty. In fact, only people who would ban your rights and ignore your plight are affected in any way, and then only if you're attacked and harmed on their grounds. No blood no foul. It's a truly balanced and even-handed bill.

 

[txinvestigator]

It is a fantastic law! I think any POB that creates an unnecessary hazard needs to be liable for the harm that it might do.

Even though this isn't passed, if I were shot in a post office, or college campus after being disarmed, I would sue.

Whom do you imigane you would sue?

 

[jordanmills]

I like where this is going.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Whom do you imigane you would sue?

Could be the property owner, the real estate conglomerate, the leasee, basically whoever is responsible for setting the rules for the property.

Why do you consider this BAD LAW?

 

[Dawico]

I guess I am on the fence with this one. At first it sounded good, but only if you HAVE to go into a place the has a sign posted. If they have a sign posted and you have any other option, go somewhere else. Thinking about it now, this would open the door for a ton of frivolous law suits. I take it like being able to sue a person that has a CHL, but doesn't use their gun to stop a crime, or isn't carrying at the time an incident occurs. I guess it would make a person think a little before they posted a 30.06 sign. I just don't know.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I am ACTUALLY eating popcorn at this moment!

 

[Mic]

Whenever we run into these things, try to imagine "business" as your house. The problem is we have two kinds of businesses (simplified) big business and small business. A small business run by a mom and pop is the same thing as my house.

If I don't want you to carry in my house, tough squat for you! And if you come by to visit me and some fool with a gun comes in and starts shooting up, I'm sorry, but for you to sue me seems ridiculous. Consider it like this - you can either allow any salesperson, landscaper, or visitor that you do not know to carry their weapon into your house or you can tell them no and it's your fault if somebody else comes in shooting.

I don't consider Walmart, Dell, Freescale, or Home Depot to be the same as my house in these scenarios, but the mom and pop dry cleaner or small cafe is just like me and my home. A business owner owns their property. If you don't like their rules, go elsewhere. But suing them because they don't want strangers carrying weapons into their house - sorry but I don't buy it.

Now, how you distinguish between the Wally worlds and the mom and pops? This is where the trouble with legislating comes in.

 

[London]

My mom works for lawyers. One of their clients was the family member of a man who was killed in an apartment complex. The apts. were on a very bad side of town with near daily car break-ins. The fellow saw his car being broken into, confronted the thief, and got murdered for his troubles. The apts. had a very strong anti-gun policy. The family sued the apts. for having the policy while providing absolutely no security and won.

Leave this stuff to the lower courts to decide. This is one area where blanket rules are not a good idea. Too many variables.

 

[KAK]

The circumstances are a moot point. Gun free zones are more dangerous than places that you can carry.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I would think this would be more applicable to employers than public businesses. You have a choice of what establishment you want to go into. If there's a 30.06 sign then don't go in, go somewhere else.

Now that I think about it, you can choose where you want to work as well. No one forces you to stick with your current occupation/employer.

The only place I ever go into, involuntarily, is a court room for a traffic ticket. Work, the post office, my cleaners, etc. all require me to make that decision.

I like the sentiment, but after thinking about it, you're stripping away the property owners rights with that bill. If you don't want the risk, don't visit their shop.

 

[KAK]

Not at all. It is just like a companies right to have falling ice sickles hanging from their roof. They can prohibit guns but if something does happen they can get sued.

It is just like a company saying they don't want black people in their store.


If a place of business creates an unnecessarily dangerous condition they should be liable for the potential consequences.

 

[txinvestigator]

Could be the property owner, the real estate conglomerate, the leasee, basically whoever is responsible for setting the rules for the property.

Why do you consider this BAD LAW?

And under what premise of tort law do you imagine for which you would sue? There is just no premise under which to prevail.

 

[txinvestigator]

Not at all. It is just like a companies right to have falling ice sickles hanging from their roof. They can prohibit guns but if something does happen they can get sued.

It is just like a company saying they don't want black people in their store.


If a place of business creates an unnecessarily dangerous condition they should be liable for the potential consequences.

I am sorry, but you have no grasp of the realities of civil law. And your assertion that not allowing guns is "just like" not allowing blacks is so ludiicrous that I cannot believe you actually mean it.

 

[txinvestigator]

My mom works for lawyers. One of their clients was the family member of a man who was killed in an apartment complex. The apts. were on a very bad side of town with near daily car break-ins. The fellow saw his car being broken into, confronted the thief, and got murdered for his troubles. The apts. had a very strong anti-gun policy. The family sued the apts. for having the policy while providing absolutely no security and won.

Leave this stuff to the lower courts to decide. This is one area where blanket rules are not a good idea. Too many variables.

Yeah, you'll have to provide case citation so the courts findings can be examined before anyone with common sense believes there was a judgment against the apartments because they were sued for their anti-gun policy, and that was the basis for the judgment.

 

[Texas42]

Whenever we run into these things, try to imagine "business" as your house. The problem is we have two kinds of businesses (simplified) big business and small business. A small business run by a mom and pop is the same thing as my house.

If I don't want you to carry in my house, tough squat for you! And if you come by to visit me and some fool with a gun comes in and starts shooting up, I'm sorry, but for you to sue me seems ridiculous. Consider it like this - you can either allow any salesperson, landscaper, or visitor that you do not know to carry their weapon into your house or you can tell them no and it's your fault if somebody else comes in shooting.

I don't consider Walmart, Dell, Freescale, or Home Depot to be the same as my house in these scenarios, but the mom and pop dry cleaner or small cafe is just like me and my home. A business owner owns their property. If you don't like their rules, go elsewhere. But suing them because they don't want strangers carrying weapons into their house - sorry but I don't buy it.

Now, how you distinguish between the Wally worlds and the mom and pops? This is where the trouble with legislating comes in.

I fail to see the difference. WalMart, and other corporations, are owned by a group of people, not just one. The have rights as owners, just like any other. The difference is that they have big wallets and are much easier targets to sue because juries are filled with persons whom believe they are "sticking it to the man."

I think it is completely wrong that a homeowner or business owner should be responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on. Lets say your at a resturant (or heck your friend's house), which gets robbed, should the resturant be liable? I remeber hearing about a case where (I believe Denny's and I don't know who won) was sued becaues they faiiled to have hired a security guard. What non-sense! The utter cost and waste of requiring every single business/househould to have a security person is simply rediculous.

Neither a CHL nor a carrying a gun is a guarrentee of anything other than you have one more option of dealing with the problems that might happen.

I'm a firm believer in property rights, and I think the rampant lawsuit crap is cooked up by a bunch of lawyers who have no goal other than to line their own pockets at the expense the court system. People should have the right to control their property. I have the right to decide where I spend my money and spend my time.

 

[London]

Yeah, you'll have to provide case citation so the courts findings can be examined before anyone with common sense believes there was a judgment against the apartments because they were sued for their anti-gun policy, and that was the basis for the judgment.

They were sued for wrongful death. My mother is very reputable and I believe her. Asking me to do so much to prove her truthfullness to online skeptics is a bit much. If you doubt her that is fine. A jury can find for the plaintiff or defendant for whatever reasons they want and you can believe her or disbelieve her for whatever reason you want.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

And under what premise of tort law do you imagine for which you would sue? There is just no premise under which to prevail.

Now that I've thought through it I agree with you that it's a bad law, but you don't think that getting shot would cause damages to a person? They could sue even without this law.

There's case law that has went both ways. It always hinges on the definition of "negligence." Look up "third party premises liability" if you want to get educated on the subject and related tort law. I think you're incorrect on this one.